Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAJOLE

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 13:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CAJOLE

Article about a programming language CAJOLE. It's mentioned on an online dictionary of terms and some minor publication, but doesn't seem notable enough.--Konstable 04:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - notability may be debateable, but it's certainly not Unencyclopedic which is what really matters. Arker 07:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per Arker. Dionyseus 10:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency -- GWO
• Keep per Arker. It's a computer programming language from the late 1970s/early 80s, which in and of itself is fairly important. It even predates SISAL as a dataflow language. Notability is not just popularity (and shouldn't be, given the degenerate state of the zeitgeist in modern Western Culture); it's also about impact on history, and as an early stage in dataflow processing research, its impact is deserving of note. The Flipped SU(5) is probably not known outside a narrow interest group or constituency (that of physicists and mathematicians), yet it is important to the evolution of grand unification theory. Captainktainer * Talk 12:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep if expanded to provide sufficient context for those unfamiliar with the field. The stub we have at present merely tells us that it's something called "Chris And John's Own LanguagE" that was written by two people at a college: well, that could be anything from a foundation of modern computer science right through to a toy language invented by a couple of students one lunchbreak and never implemented!
  CAJOLE is not mentioned at all in the article on dataflow languages, so it's not easy for someone without specialist knowledge to judge how significant a language it actually was in their development. If it had "impact" that was "deserving of note", then surely it wouldn't be that difficult to add at least a couple of sentences mentioning that fact. — Haeleth Talk 13:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Right now, this article is a dicdef. If anyone who knows anything about it would like to add a few sentences, I'd be happy to change my opinion. AdamBiswanger1 13:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; see AdamBiswanger1 and GWO. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Might change my vote if expanded. I read the article and still hardly know what it is. I know more from reading Captaintainer's comments.--Joe Jklin (T C) 17:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Just because it's obscure doesn't make it non-notable. Jtrainor 17:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. --PresN 18:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Until it is expanded, it isn't worthy to be an article Lorty 18:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I was initially skeptical, as Wikipedia Is Not For Dataflow Computer Languages Made Up In College One Day (WP:WINFDCLMUICOD), but this one seems to have received a reasonable amount of academic attention in its day [1] OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but please expand with some of the sources OhNoitsJamie has located. Ziggurat 23:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Though CAJOLE did receive some publicity back in its day I don't think it is notable enough today. And as the article stands it is more of a definition than an article.--Konstable 04:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)#
• Keep and Expand as per Captainktainer --Amists 10:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand Isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia to have entries, even smaller ones, on a few obscure topics like old computer languages? - Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand per Captainktainer and OhNoitsJamie. --Zoz (t) 15:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand per above Computerjoe's talk 15:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• KeepPatcat88 04:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand; I'm willing to give it a chance to prove itself. If it doesn't improve in a couple months, then delete. Xuanwu 06:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.